ll"lillllillllliiJlii|IIIJIi!Jill| 
014 040 422 6 ^ 



HoUingier 

pH S3 

Mai Run F03-2193 



SPEECH 



HON. J O S I A H Q U I N C Y, 



Deliverkd in February, 1858, 



^doxt Ibc Committte of llje ^lassacljusttts ^"egisliitnrc, 



TO WHOM WAS REFERRED THE PETITION OF THE NEW-ENGLAND HISTORIC- 
GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY FOR A CHANGE OF THEIR CORPORATE NAME, 
AND THE REMONSTRANCE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL 
SOCIETY. 



Gentlemen, — I regret the necessity which compels me to 
appear on tliis occasion. I have arrived at a period of life at 
which it is becoming and wise to abstain from mingling in the 
controversies of the day, for which I have as little inclination 
as comparative power. But a Society of which I am the 
oldest member has seen fit, without any thought or wish of 
mine, to call upon me for this service ; and, after reflection, I 
have not found sufficient cause to justify me in declining^ 
Having been admitted into it in tlie year 1797, and been 
acquainted with all tlie original founders of it, the opinion 
seems to have been entertained, that my services might be 
useful on this occasion. 



2 SPEECH OF THE HOx\. JOSIAH QUINCY. 

At first view, to a thoughtless mind, and one not acquainted 
with the circumstances which influence the character, power, 
and convenience of individuals and societies, the point in con- 
troversy might appear strange and somewhat ludicrous. Two 
Societies, of respectable standing, are in contest about a name; 
the one striving to get, the other striving to retain a name it 
has exclusively possessed more than sixty-four years without 
interference. But names are things, — sometimes, in their 
application to human character, very serious things, — and, in 
respect of societies, may, by identity with some other, affect 
both their interest and convenience. 

The Society I represent has been, as I have said, known to 
the world, upwards of sixty-four years, by the name of the 
Massachusetts Historical Society. No other association of men 
ever thought of assuming it until about twelve years ago, when 
the Society now petitioning for the same name was formed, 
with a name approximating, but not identical with, that of the 
Society I now represent. It called itself The New-England 
Historic- Genealogical Society^ — a name long enough, one 
would suppose, to satisfy the taste or the appetite of any hu- 
man being, or of any association of human beings, were they 
Spaniards or Frenchmen. After enjoying this name for twelve 
years without question or molestation, they suddenly find 
it is not long enough ; and come to the Legislature of Massa- 
chusetts, almost with tears in their eyes, to lengthen it out by 
adding al to historic, so that they may be hereafter known as 
The Neiv-Eng-land Historical Genealogical Society. Was 
ever a legislature called upon before to legislate upon a subject 
so small and so trivial ? Nothing is wanted by these petition- 
ers to make them perfectly happy and great, but the addition- 
al to their already sesquipedalian name. In other words, all 
they want is precisely the addition of that single element which 
now distinguishes that Society from ours. Unless there is some 
hidden hope or anticipated advantage concealed under this de- 
sired addition, tlie desire can have no other origin than idiosyn- 



SPEECH OP THE HON. JOSIAH QUINCY. 6 

crasy, like that of the frog, who thouglit that, by a little swelling, 
he would grow into, or be mistaken for, something very great. 
But, to treat the subject seriously, gentlemen, can it be for 
the interest of either of these Societies, or for the advantage of 
the public, that the name by which two important Societies 
are known should be identical ? For, grant the prayer of 
this petition, and, notwithstanding the supererogatory matter 
with which their name is loaded, in general and popular opi- 
nion there will be two historical societies, bearing the same 
name, in Massachusetts. Is this for the interest and conve- 
nience of the State or its citizens ? Will this long-tailing of the 
word historic increase that Society's power, spirit, or useful- 
ness ? 

It may aid you in deciding this question to possess a short 
sketch of the proceedings of this Society and its origin, as I 
have received the accounts from others, and believe in their 
substantial correctness. Tlie Massachusetts Historical Society 
was, by its Act of Incorporation, restricted to six!// resident mem- 
bers. In the original draught of the Association, before its incor- 
poration, its resident members were restricted to thirtij ; not 
from any desire of cxclusiveness, but as I liave heard, if I mis- 
take not, Dr. Belknap, the real founder of the Society, himself 
say, to compel the Society to choose only men adapted and dis- 
posed to become active workers in that field ; in order that it 
should not be tempted to elect members for the sake of bestowing 
upon them a feather, and become pursy and heavy by numbers, 
without proportionate activity, and power of progress. The num- 
ber was raised to sixty by the Legislature, without, if not con- 
trary to, the wishes of the original associates ; at least, so I have 
always understood. With the number of sixty, the Society 
labored during more than fifty years, published about thirty 
volumes, and obtained a character and celebrity which rendered 
admission into it a subject of desire, especially by those who had 
congenial historical sympathies. In process of time, men of 
this class arose in Massachusetts, adapted and disposed to unite 



4 SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSIAH QUINCY. 

in tlie same labors, extremely desirous to become members of 
the Society, but into which they could not enter on account 
of the restriction contained in the Act of Incorporation. Men 
of this description gradually multiplied. Some of these, who 
hoped for admission, were disappointed when vacancies occa- 
sionally happened, and which were filled by others. Some of 
these were said to have had the mortification of being rejected 
when others were elected. With wishes and feelings of this 
kind, the Society now petitioning for an addition to its char- 
tered name, naturally, properly, and wisely originated. Tliere 
was and could be no possible objection to it. Members 
of the Massachusetts Historical Society hailed it as a co-laborer 
in the same field : some of them joined it. Nor was 
there any thought or feeling or question concerning its 
tendency to any crossing of interests with the Massachu- 
setts Historical Society suggested, until, in addition to New- 
England Genealogical, they inserted historic into their 
nomenclature of objects. Friendly suggestions are stated to 
have been made to some of the projectors of the new Society, 
that this name might lead to some mistake or confusion ; but 
without eifoct. It was said that no such danger was to be 
apprehended ; that they had not taken the name of liistorical ; 
that the word historic was, in their name, associated with 
g-enealog-ical, to which it was applicable alone, and not intended 
to embrace any general historical scope. Though not satis- 
fied with these explanations, the members of the Massachusetts 
Historical Society were compelled to be silent ; for the names 
were not entirely identical. Apprehension of some inconve- 
nience was, liowever, entertained, from the proximity of the 
names in tliis respect. Accordingly, as is set forth in the me- 
morial of the Massachusetts Historical Society, it can be 
proved, that the name the new Society already bears has occa- 
sioned many inconveniences to both Societies ; that they have 
been confounded with each other, both at the post-office and in 
the public mind ; communications, and contributions of pam- 



SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSIAH QUIXCY. 5 

phlets and of books, have been so addressed from a distance as 
to leave a doubt for which Society they were intended. Under 
such circumstances, is it possible that the Legislature of 
Massachusetts can think it wise or just to increase these incon- 
veniences by making the names of these Societies, in the 
manner proposed, identical ? 

It is proper here to ask. Why did not that Society originally 
assume, and ask the Legislature in their Act of Incorporation 
for, the same name for which they now petition ? Plainly for 
the reason, — there could be no other, — that the Legislature of 
that day would have seen the impropriety, and anticipated the 
inconvenience, of incorporating two Societies with names whose 
principal elements were identical. The Historical Society 
would have then, in such case, unquestionably remonstrated, 
and as unquestionably would have been successful. 

The next step indicates very clearly, that there was some- 
where, among the members of that Society, a disposition to 
assume the very name for it which they had not received from 
tlie Legislature, and for which they did not originally even 
dare to ask. For, almost immediately after the Act of Incor- 
poration of the new Society had been obtained, one of its ori- 
ginal founders, and, if report says true, the principal objector 
to its present name, published a periodical, which, to every 
reasonable mind, must, under the circumstances, be regarded 
as the act of the whole Society, which, instead of taking its 
corporate name, at once, in the very face of the Act of 
Incorporation, assumed the name for which they now peti- 
tion, and called itself " The New-Eng-Iand Historical Genea- 
logical Register ;''^ plaiidy evidencing, that it was early in 
the intention of that Society to assume a name which the 
Legislature had not granted, and for which they did not 
originally dare to ask. Now, is it possible that the Legisla- 
ture of ]\Iassachusetts will sanction a name thus assumed 
under such circumstances, not only without, but in defiance of, 
their authority ? 



6 SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSIAH QUINCY. 

It is now proper to inquire, What are the grave, solid reasons 
on wliich these petitioners rest their hopes of success ? Fortu- 
nately, there can be no doubt on this subject. The Massachu- 
setts Historical Society happily enjoy the advantage which the 
scriptural patriarch so earnestly desired, " Oh that my ene- 
mies had written a book ! " The petitioners have written a 
book, setting forth those reasons in all their power and strength. 
" 1st, The desired name is in better taste and more euphonious 
than their corporate titled Grant tliat it is so. What then ? Was 
not taste and euphony as well known and as justly appreciated 
when their Act of Incorporation was petitioned for and granted 
as it is at this day ? Why did they accept a charter-name 
which was in bad taste and so cacophonious ? The reason has 
been already explained. Tliey did not dare to ask for that 
which they now desire, knowing that it would not be granted. 
Yet that, at the moment tliey accepted this cacophonious name, 
and one in such bad taste, they knew and intended, at some 
propitious time, if possible, to get rid of it, and assume that 
which the old Society has so long possessed, is apparent from 
tlie fact, tliat they did then immediately, though unautliorized 
by the Legislature, assume it, and, by this public assumption, 
have unquestionably contributed to produce that confusion in 
the piiblic mind concerning the two Societies which has already 
occasioned so much inconvenience. 

•" 2d, It corresponds ivith the title of tJie periodical issued bij the 
Society.'''' Here it will be observed, that tliis periodical is openly 
avowed to be the work of the Society ; and thus they derive an 
argument from their own unwarranted assumption. Acknow- 
ledging tlie inconvenience to the public their assumption has 
occasioned, they make their own wrong the ground of its con- 
tinuance and of your sanction of it; making their contempt of 
the legislative act a reason and groundwork of legislative 
favor. To say the least, there is a boldness in tliis argument 
somewhat original, and characteristic of their whole proceed- 
ings. The last ground on which they rest their petition is of 



SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSIAH QUINCY. 7 

tlie same extraordinary type : — '' 3(1, It is t/ic luiiiie b// icliich 
their Society is ^enerdllij desiii^naled and knuini."' In otlier 
words, liaving taken upon themselves a name wliich did 
not belong to tliem, having persevered in the use of it in 
open contempt of the name given them by the Legislature, 
they ask that now, when the inconvenience they have thus 
produced is felt and acknoAvledged, it should be publicly 
sanctioned, and that this inconvenience should be made perma- 
nent. Can it be possible that such an argument can receive 
one moment's sanction from the Legislature ? This little book, 
or pamphlet, from which these weighty reasons for granting 
their petitions have been abstracted, has been, I understand, 
put into the hands of every member of the Legislature, — a 
sort of log-rolling emissary, intended to do its work out of doors 
and in the lobbies, where the real grounds of opposition to it 
cannot reach, and will be unknown. Now, these grounds are, 
that inconvenience has already been experienced, and more 
may be hereafter anticipated. This inconvenience was, in fact, 
anticipated originally, when the new Society inserted historic 
among their names, and was on that account objected to, yet 
adopted by them notwithstanding this objection, they main- 
taining that no such inconvenience could occur, because the 
name was not identical with ours. And yet, with a full know- 
ledge of these apprehensions, they immediately, in a piiljlication 
under their sanction, drop the incorporated name, and take the 
particular element which made the names of the two Societies 
identical, and out of which all tlie inconveniences complained 
of have arisen. Can such proceedings deserve or receive the 
sanction of the Legislature of Massachusetts ? 

Li justice to the petitioning Society, 1 ought to say, that 
the object petitioned for is far from being the unanimous wish 
of the members of it. !Many of its memlicrs see the suliject in 
the light in which it is viewed and here presented by the 
Massachusetts Historical Society, and feel the force of the ob- 
jections to the prayer of their petition. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



014 040 422 6 



SPEECH OF THE HON. JOSIAH QUINCY. 



Finally, gentlemen, is it for tlio interest or honor of" the 
State, that the names of two Societies, having both important 
bearings upon the history of the country, should be, in their 
principal element, so identical as to create inconvenience to 
them, and confusion in the public mind ? Shall not a Society 
which owes its origin to such names as Jeremy Belknap, 
George Richards Minot, John Eliot, and James Sullivan, be 
permitted to enjoy for ever, without obstruction, the name 
they originally assumed ? 



/ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 040 422 6 



Hollinger 

pH 83 

MiU Run F03.2193 



